Awful Decision From McCain Camp

#226
#226
BigPapaVol said:
I like ostrich evasion techniques.
Click to expand...

Nice...

Tenn, his policies alone are enough to get him beat (possibly), but you can't claim that Obama didn't know and therefore should not be subjected to question about Wright, Ayers etc. His associations are the one who brought race into question. So because Bush had dealing with oil companies, he's therfore in their hip pocket right? If Obama isn't racist due to his associations, then Bush isn't the oil companies puppet.
 
#227
#227
where do you see the racism in what Geraldine said?

if Obama were a white back bench junior senator from Illinois, he would not be where he is right now.
 
#228
#228
MG1968 said:
the speech that Obama gave in Minnesota tonight is nothing but Socialism/Marxism.

take from this group and give to that group.

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. People who don't realize that are either stupid or ignorant.
Click to expand...

You've made this point approximately 179 times on this board. I hear you loud and clear.
 
#229
#229
MG1968 said:
where do you see the racism in what Geraldine said?

if Obama were a white back bench junior senator from Illinois, he would not be where he is right now.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but you can't say it in public, you know political correctness super-seeds logic.
 
#230
#230
TennNC said:
You've made this point approximately 179 times on this board. I hear you loud and clear.
Click to expand...

and I'll keep on repeating it until the Obama apologists and kool aid drinkers understand that socialism is a failed system.
 
#231
#231
volinbham said:
I haven't claimed Obama to be racist whatsoever.

The Trent Lott commentary is an aside about situational ethics when it comes to racism. The level of attacks from Dems on Lott dwarfed those from Dems on Wright eventhough Wright's comments were significantly more egregious. Here I'm only calling for even treatment by Democrats in general when it comes to racial comments.
Click to expand...

Are you saying Wright hasn't been sufficiently chastised for his remarks?
 
#233
#233
TennNC said:
Have you read Obama's speech on race? He may have defended Wright and the many other good things he has done, but not once did he defend any racist remarks.

As for what Geraldine said, if you don't think this is racist, then we have different interpretations of the term:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept".
Click to expand...

We are at definitional odds then:

1. Defending Wright and explaining his comments are a product of his situation is indeed defending a racist. His speech about race said you have to understand the context and therefore Wright's comments are the product of his context (forgiving them in a sense).

2. Ferraro's comments certainly are racial but not necessarily racist. There is no indication of hate, inferiority, etc due to his race. Her explanation is that the situation was ripe for the country (or at least part of it) to embrace race as a driver of choice in a candidate. She was making a right place/right time argument. I can't say if she is right or wrong in her contention.
 
#235
#235
TennNC said:
Are you saying Wright hasn't been sufficiently chastised for his remarks?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the outcry about his commentary from Democratic leadership - even from Obama himself was nowhere near the outcry directed towards Trent Lott.
 
#236
#236
volsforever27 said:
Nice...

Tenn, his policies alone are enough to get him beat (possibly), but you can't claim that Obama didn't know and therefore should not be subjected to question about Wright, Ayers etc. His associations are the one who brought race into question. So because Bush had dealing with oil companies, he's therfore in their hip pocket right? If Obama isn't racist due to his associations, then Bush isn't the oil companies puppet.
Click to expand...

We've debated the hell out of this before. I don't buy the guilt by association argument.
 
#238
#238
TennNC said:
We've debated the hell out of this before. I don't buy the guilt by association argument.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to, my point is about the double standard. However, sometimes where there's smoke there really is fire? I'm not saying he's racist, i'm saying it's ok to ask these questions.
 
#239
#239
TennNC said:
Are you saying Wright hasn't been sufficiently chastised for his remarks?
Click to expand...

I'm looking for a better source but apparently Obama called for Lott's dismissal after the commentary. I guess he didn't view him as a crazy old uncle.
 
#240
#240
I dont think its so much guilt by association, but he will be assigning cabinet post, judges, advisors, as POTUS, and you have to look into his associations, who does he surround himself with. Every candidate goes thru this, this isn't uncharted waters here.
 
#241
#241
volinbham said:
We are at definitional odds then:

1. Defending Wright and explaining his comments are a product of his situation is indeed defending a racist. His speech about race said you have to understand the context and therefore Wright's comments are the product of his context (forgiving them in a sense).

2. Ferraro's comments certainly are racial but not necessarily racist. There is no indication of hate, inferiority, etc due to his race. Her explanation is that the situation was ripe for the country (or at least part of it) to embrace race as a driver of choice in a candidate. She was making a right place/right time argument. I can't say if she is right or wrong in her contention.
Click to expand...

Except that he didn't forgive them - not in a sense, not in any sense. He tried to offer some context for why he might say it. But never did he say anything to the extent of "It's okay for him to say that b/c of his background."

Yes - we're at definitional odds. Saying someone has only achieved something b/c of his race, IMO, is racist.

Good night all.
 
#242
#242
TennNC said:
Except that he didn't forgive them - not in a sense, not in any sense. He tried to offer some context for why he might say it. But never did he say anything to the extent of "It's okay for him to say that b/c of his background."
Yes - we're at definitional odds. Saying someone has only achieved something b/c of his race, IMO, is racist.

Good night all.
Click to expand...


I may be mistaken, but didn't he (Obama) use the excuse of his background to explain why he made them? The 60's etc?
 
#243
#243
TennNC said:
We've debated the hell out of this before. I don't buy the guilt by association argument.
Click to expand...

I will bet your Mom taught you about "guilt by association" when she discussed the type of people you hung around.
 
#245
#245
TennNC said:
Except that he didn't forgive them - not in a sense, not in any sense. He tried to offer some context for why he might say it. But never did he say anything to the extent of "It's okay for him to say that b/c of his background."

Yes - we're at definitional odds. Saying someone has only achieved something b/c of his race, IMO, is racist.

Good night all.
Click to expand...

rac·ism Audio Help [rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
[Origin: 1865&#8211;70; < F racisme. See race2, -ism]
Click to expand...

Given the above definition - I stand by my interpration. She was making a right place/right time comment.

If he lost and she said the only reason he lost was because of his color that clearly wouldn't be a racist statement.

ra·cial Audio Help [rey-shuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
&#8211;adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one race or the races of humankind.
2. arising, occurring, or existing because of differences between races or racial attitudes: racial conflict; racial motivations.
[Origin: 1860&#8211;65; race2 + -ial]
Click to expand...

This one seems to fit much better.

Another way to look at it - do you believe his race has anything to do with his support? If so, are you racist?

Her commentary implies the reactions of others with regard to his race. She is making racial commentary.

The term racist gets thrown around too much for my comfort. The accusation is incredibly damaging and virtually impossible to defend against.
 
#246
#246
volsforever27 said:
I may be mistaken, but didn't he (Obama) use the excuse of his background to explain why he made them? The 60's etc?
Click to expand...

You may see it as an excuse. I see it as him trying to understand the origin of the comments, that they're not made in a vaccuum, and that to truly overcome race-based divisions we need to peel back many layers on both sides.
 
#247
#247
TennNC said:
You may see it as an excuse. I see it as him trying to understand the origin of the comments, that they're not made in a vaccuum, and that to truly overcome race-based divisions we need to peel back many layers on both sides.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you were beating the same drum trying to rationalize Lott's comments, which were much less divisive.
 
#248
#248
volinbham said:
Given the above definition - I stand by my interpration. She was making a right place/right time comment.

If he lost and she said the only reason he lost was because of his color that clearly wouldn't be a racist statement.



This one seems to fit much better.

Another way to look at it - do you believe his race has anything to do with his support? If so, are you racist?

Her commentary implies the reactions of others with regard to his race. She is making racial commentary.

The term racist gets thrown around too much for my comfort. The accusation is incredibly damaging and virtually impossible to defend against.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and I appreciate your analysis. I understand your POV on this and agree that charges of racism can be thrown around too quickly.

I also believe that subtle digs to try to discredit one opponent and help another might not seem overt to many people but nonetheless reinforce the idea that "1. inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement."

I think that's what Ferraro was doing.

And I also think that if she were right, why didn't Sharpton or Jackson or Keyes do any better than they did in recent elections? Isn't she saying that any black man could've achieved what Obama achieved? If she'd said that any white man could've achieved what McCain achieved, or what Bush has achieved, or what any U.S. president in history has achieved, would that not be construed as a racist remark?
 
#249
#249
BigPapaVol said:
I'm sure you were beating the same drum trying to rationalize Lott's comments, which were much less divisive.
Click to expand...

At the time I didn't pay it much attention. But since you and others have brought it up repeatedly and seem to think it's relevant now, I'd appreciate if you would rationalize them for me now.
 
#250
#250
TennNC said:
At the time I didn't pay it much attention. But since you and others have brought it up repeatedly and seem to think it's relevant now, I'd appreciate if you would rationalize them for me now.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to rationalize them in the least. I find all comments of that nature reprehensible, whether from the Dem, Repub, Minority or Majority side.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top